Thursday, October 23, 2014
"Low Brow" Genres
How does Horace Newcomb's essay complicate Newton Minow’s assessment of television as a “vast wasteland”? Why does he believe that 'low brow' genres such as the western can be more complicated than they seem? Do you agree? Perhaps give an example of a contemporary 'low brow' show and explain why it might or might not have social relevance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In his article, Newcomb argues that westerns present social issues in a comfortable setting. At first glance, westerns may seem low brow due to the traditionally basic plots of law and order where the good guy catches the bad guy with a gunfight thrown in. Upon closer inspection, however, the shows Newcomb wrote about are not so simple. Unlike the programming Newton Minow described in his speech, these shows contain poignant social commentary. Newcomb argues that these westerns are a powerful and valid platform to communicate potentially controversial social ideas. His theory is consistent with many media theories, most notably parasocial interactions. This posits that the more people are exposed to a representation on television, the less prejudice they’ll have in real life. This applies to these westerns and their commentary on civil rights issues. People were likely to watch those shows to being with, which provided a platform to expose the greater public to issues that could in turn make them more receptive and less prejudiced.
ReplyDeleteA contemporary example could be the show Brooklyn Nine-Nine. It is a comedy sitcom and does not contain a lot of serious or deep content, however they do address social issues, namely through the gay captain. It’s a similar concept to the one Newcomb describes. Its very comfortable situation as a police procedural and sitcom comedy, but they’re including social commentary.
Going off of Sarah’s argument, Newcomb’s article argues that Westerns in the 1960s used a comfortingly distant setting, one that is unthreatening to the viewer, to reflect the ambivalence of the American people towards the civil rights movement and political crises. In a show like Have Gun – Will Travel, Paladin’s distaste for violence and defense of a man who is almost lynched can be interpreted as a progressive message while it remains within the confines of the genre. Similarly, the episode of Dragnet we watched in class, which could also be classified as a member of the “low brow” crime genre, uses its themes of law and order to tell a cautionary tale about the use of LSD. Drug culture, something that ran rampant among teenagers and twenty-somethings in the 60s, certainly feels like more of a complicated backdrop than one might expect from a crime show.
ReplyDeleteCurrently, the most socially relevant yet unabashedly “low brow” show that I can think of is American Horror Story. Despite pulling in audiences with its stylish gore and suspense, the show utilizes a diverse cast to tell stories that serve as sharp analogies for social rights. One can watch American Horror Story on a shallow level as an entertaining and compelling horror tale, but there are a great deal of socially relevant issues that the show deals with and criticizes in its subtext.
Horace Newcomb looks at television in the 1960’s as a method to confront social issues, such as civil rights and violence, in a very mild, indirect format. As the other students have mentioned, it was a way to “comfortably” bring up social issues without provoking a definitive stance on either position. In this sense, I believe Newcomb invalidates TV as a ‘wasteland’ because, “the medium, in both fictional and informational programming, did aid greatly in contributing to a better informed citizenry,” (Newcomb 294). This directly contradicts the message of Minow’s speech. Newcomb feels these genres are more complicated because they, for the first time, are presenting these social issues. An example of this is the Asian American representation in Kung Fu, where the greater population consistently regards the Asian citizens as lesser people. The show allowed viewers to reflect on a deeper meaning beyond the martial arts fighting.
ReplyDeleteA contemporary example of ‘low brow’ television would be South Park. At a surface level, the show tends to be very disrespectful and raunchy, appearing to have no class. However, I feel the show’s unique ability to critique modern society allows viewers to reflect on the social issues in our modern world, and potentially helps us see how illegitimate some of these issues really are. Ultimately, the detail and deep analysis of stories within the show clearly touch upon real issues and are more than just quick, cheap laughs.
Newcomb's argument deflates the ideas Minow's "Vast Wasteland" by raising the mundane, lowbrow, to a place of higher intellectual relevance. Minow asserted that television was a place where rich executives could push forth filth, an avenue for muck to seep into our living rooms for hours on end. The endless programming consumed us in its inept, dim witted squall. Newcomb diminishes this train of thought by posing westerns as programs with intellectual and social relevance. Westerns were once a place of white virtue and intense patriotism opposed to the racially degraded. Newcomb states that now, Westerns have become a place for social argument to present themselves in a safe area, in the structure that people were used to. That is to say, Westerns were able to pose significant problems in modern society, but not necessarily find an answer. This is more congruent with reality, rather than the smut of western's past. In Have Gun Will Travel, we find a cowboy faced with bringing a guilty man to court before getting lynched by his fellow townsfolk. In this episode, we get a chance to see more complex relationships and issues through the lens of a Western.
ReplyDeleteI believe Newcomb has made an apt point, but I do not think that Minow's "Vast Wasteland" is any less true. Reality television like Real Housewives and What Not to Wear still run rampant on networks for the purpose of simple entertainment at the expense of exploited non-actors. These shows run for profit, not for social contextualization of important issues (without a solution). Each episode comes to a close with someone finding a new look, or new style, or new dinner party to fight about. While shows like South Park make light of social conversations through absurd comedy, many reality shows make cheap jokes at the expense of relevant social importance.